Richard Littlejohn decided to tell us that "the confected, hysterical reaction to [Clarke's] remarks was frankly typical of the debasement of political debate in this country." Yup, that's right - the drivelling moron behind the most incoherent novel ever written is lecturing us about the level of political debate in Britain. But, irony aside, more important is that this vile misogynistic cretin is lecturing women (sorry, "the self-appointed Boadiceas of feminism") on rape.

Wouldn't you know, whilst he's got "no doubt that the victims of the most violent attacks ... carry their trauma with them for the rest of their days," he's equally certain that most cases of rape can be boiled down to a woman being "so sloshed she can’t remember whether or not she consented." With such a false binary built up, it is then very easy to say that "there are varying degrees of so-called ‘rape’, deserving of different punishments." Because "there’s a world of difference between a violent sexual assault at the hands of a complete stranger, or gang of strangers, and a subsequently regretted, alcohol-induced one-night stand."

Peter Hitchens takes the same tack. "Some rapes ARE worse than others. There, I've said it," reads his headline. He's daring us liberal PC-fetishists to shout him down, you see. Something that doesn't exist called "revolutionary feminism" has apparently "scared most politicians, most judges, most journalists, most civil servants – and most people – into accepting its nasty dogmas." Except, of course, the highly paid columnists of one of the most widely read newspapers in Britain. How brave they are, dominating the comment pages and reaching far more people than the most revolutionary of feminists even whilst living in a country under the iron heel of feminazism. Or something.

Anyway, he too argues that rape more often means "a dispute about consent, often between people who are already in a sexual relationship." By contrast, only "the forcible abduction and violation of a woman by a stranger" is serious and to give other acts the same label is to dilute the crime.

The reason that I haven't yet commented on this is because it pisses me off. It's not a "debate." It's not "contentious." It's not "a matter of opinion." It is reactionary vomit spewed out by two highly-paid shitbags so thick that they believe rape by someone you know is not a big issue yet will argue that people disagreeing with them and voicing that opinion amounts to censorship. Even as they not only have a weekly platform for their opinions but are fucking paid for them.

This is not to mention the MEP Roger Helmer deciding that the victim of a date rape is culpable for "establishing reasonable expectations in her boyfriend’s mind." Yup, apparently once a man gets enough blood into his cock he becomes "unable to restrain himself" and so he is "not always equally culpable" as stranger danger. The lesson being that he should "expect a much lighter sentence" and the woman should perhaps learn to not get "cold feet." You know, man up and just take it - after all, men can't be expected to go beyond primal instincts and behave like highly evolved sentient beings or anything!

It utterly boggles my mind that some people cannot get this concept through their thick skulls. Rape is a sexual act performed on another without their consent or against their will. No exceptions.

This counts if they are a complete stranger or your closest friend. Whether they are sober or so drunk that they can't see straight. Whether they are running away from you or changed their mind just before you were about to leap into bed. Whether they are wearing a full burkha or are butt naked.

There are no "degrees," and if you'd happily pin somebody down and force yourself inside them after they beg you not to just because you have a hard-on, this is not getting carried away. It is you being a vicious, worthless fuck so devoid of morality or empathy that you believe there are people in this world who exist only for your gratification whether they like it or not. You are a vile cretin and the world would be better off if you spontaneously combusted.

Peter Hitchens and Richard Littlejohn are odious, hateful men. This is not a novel condition. But they are paid a lot of money to be so odious and hateful - and more importantly to reach a national audience with such views.